Its hard to respond to those whose ears drip the morton dribble but this is a bit of why. IMO

Bc like other locations in other countrys has its own set of unique circumstances environmentally and economically.

First and foremost we have Pacific salmon stocks which seem to be fairly resilient compared to Atlantic salmon and other species that may be effected. Look at the great lakes for example. Most of the pacific species there (springs, coho, pinks, stealhead)seem to have made a fair go of it there all the while atlatics there struggle to make their comeback.

One has to wade through a fair amount of misinformation about what has actually happened in other places. Chile for example has no wild salmon but you will hear that there stock have been wiped out by farmed salmon but the only thing that happened there was that most of the farm salmon(atlantics) died from ISA. There are other issues of course that are the product of the rules and regulations of that country that are not the situation here. Basically we have the most strictly regulated salmon farms in the world.

steve u have no idea what i eat, and i can guarantee u that none of the food i eat is produced in altered fish habitat, oh wait a second, i eat halibut and salmon and other species of fish and their habitat has been altered by fish farms ......dont worry they will be on land soon enough.....well, maybe not soon enough, but they WILL be out of the ocean.....holmes*

See it's untrue statements like that that try to dismiss the issue that get me riled! Both Chile and BC are raising masses of salmon in an ocean where the waste, diseases and medication effect the environment they are in. There is no difference in the environment. It's only a matter of time before our environment is negatively impacted the same way it has been impacted in Norway and Chile.

Why not be pro-active and put these farms on land where they belong instead of denying it can't happen here, while waiting for it to happen here?!

Logged

Disclosure: This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context.

The BC Salmon Farmers are crowing over today’s media conference announcing the results of further testing for the ISA virus in Pacific salmon. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the salmon farming industry’s public relations division – aka DFO Aquaculture Branch – tried their best to sound neutral and unbiased but were clearly pleased to report their findings to date. But not so fast (spin) doctors.

If you listened to the first few minutes of the media conference call there was nothing but good news. According to Dr. Con Kiley, Director of National Aquatic Animal Health with CFIA, there are no confirmed cases of ISA in either wild or farmed salmon in BC, all the samples received were thoroughly tested, all tests were negative and basically, we can all relax. There is no cause for concern.

That would be great news. ISA in the Pacific ocean could have tragic and truly devastating consequences if the disease were to mutate or prove to be virulent. Today’s announcement from the CFIA, DFO and the BC government was very reassuring – up to about the 10 minute mark.

I started getting very worried again when Kiley noted that “these supplementary results must be considered inconclusive because of the poor quality of the samples.” Say what? Inconclusive?

The spin-doctoring started seriously unravelling when a reporter from the Seattle Times asked if Canadian government officials would be willing to share raw samples with US researchers if they wanted to do their own testing (audio credit: www.ecoshock.net). Hmmm – seems our friends to the south are as suspicious of DFO and CFIA’s cosy partnership with the fish farming industry as Canadians are.

Peter King, who heads up the Moncton DFO laboratory that did the re-testing of the samples responded (and I quote): “For the most part these samples are either partially – and I say over the half way mark – or totally, totally degraded. Sharing those samples would not be good science. They are in poor condition, we received them in poor condition and moving them anywhere else is not going to help anybody.” He talks about the storage of the samples and the degradation of RNA, then goes on to say: “That’s why we call things inconclusive – because the degradation is so bad you cannot form an opinion from a test standpoint as to whether or not you are capable or not capable. The fact that they come up negative doesn’t really mean anything because they are so badly degraded.”

The negative test “doesn’t really mean anything”?

CFIA’s Kiley tries to regain control of the spin: “Or that you get a result that’s positive”King acknowledges “That’s a possibility too – that’s why we have to go to confirmatory testing...”

So given the huge uncertainty, surely our federal agencies are now working hard to get to the bottom of this? If the samples are poor quality, they must have a plan to immediately secure more and better samples? If the results are inconclusive and they can’t categorically rule out the presence of ISA then they’ll be spending sleepless nights putting together a testing program to make certain our wild salmon are not exposed to this disease.

Dr. Kiley advises DFO and CFIA are “assessing current testing levels for ISA in both wild and aquaculture populations in BC” and will “increase surveillance activities as required”. But they are acting quickly, right? Kiley replies there are ideal times of year for tests and based on the species and where they want to test they will decide what will be done and when. So the spin will be ‘no ISA in BC’ while the reality is the tests are totally inconclusive, ISA might be present or it might not, the salmon farmers continue to do their own sampling and testing (but are ‘sharing’ the results of their in-house fish health audits with the Province) and the Canadian government agencies are going to move at a glacial pace before doing anything because after all – what’s the rush? It’s only our wild salmon and the continued functioning of our Pacific coast ecosystem that’s on the line.

At the end, a reporter introduces herself as Roxanne from the Yukon News and asks if there is further testing done, would it come north and perhaps include the Yukon River? Dr. Kiley replies: “No, we do our investigation in Canadian waters.” Now I’m reassured – Canada’s best are on the job.

At the end, a reporter introduces herself as Roxanne from the Yukon News and asks if there is further testing done, would it come north and perhaps include the Yukon River? Dr. Kiley replies: “No, we do our investigation in Canadian waters.” Now I’m reassured – Canada’s best are on the job.

Look what has happened in other countries Dan, can you give me an answer why it will be different here, no one here has given me an answer yet, maybe it is because they do not have one.

First of all (most important) as said before Chile had no salmon stocks to begin with, nothing was wiped out. Norway has not had any wild stocks wiped out either.

What happened on the East coast may indeed (from my view point) have been caused by farms. But you are missing 2 major factors here:

1) The wild stocks were the same as the farmed fish. This meant that diseases could actually spread from wild to farmed and vice versa. It also meant that if any farmed fish escaped, they could actually spawn in the wild and weaken the genetic pool. This is not the case in our waters, where pacific salmon are very immune to Atlantic diseases and can't produce viable offspring with them.

2) Bio security back then was almost non existent. Farms were extremely clustered and were hot spots for disease. Fish were harvested right on site and blood was pumped right into the water. Brood fish were kept close to smolts, etc. Bio security has become incredibly harsh now. There are different management zones where only 1 age class of fish can be raised at a time. No harvest can be done at sites, and if done on a vessel no harvest water can be put back into the ocean without sanitation. Fines are huge and can result in your licence being pulled, so in short no one does it. There hasn't been an outbreak of ISA or other disease since bio security protocols have been raised.

If you are referring to their Cod fishery (and I'm sure this applies to their Atlantics even somewhat as well) that was strictly over fishing that did them in. Cod are a totally different species and inhabit different niches, etc. Farms had nothing to do with their demise, and unless you can provide some type of scientific paper (or anyone else) that is what most people would go off of.

See it's untrue statements like that that try to dismiss the issue that get me riled! Both Chile and BC are raising masses of salmon in an ocean where the waste, diseases and medication effect the environment they are in. There is no difference in the environment. It's only a matter of time before our environment is negatively impacted the same way it has been impacted in Norway and Chile.

Once again, no impact in Norway and especially Chile which had no stocks to begin with, although anti farmers would love you to believe that.

Waste? How is the farmed salmon waste any different than wild salmon waste? They are fed the same stuff and produce the same waste? Even if you argue about the food waste going into the ocean, it was taken out of the ocean to begin with!

Diseases? I don't know of hardly any diseases (if any at all) that can live more than 48 hrs in the water. Once again, diseases effecting Atlantic's hardly ever effect Pacific salmon as they are more hardy and have developed immunities to many of the diseases.

Medication? This really annoys me! Anyone can go online and find the actual amount of antibiotics administered to farmed fish. 2009 it was a whopping 528 g per Metric Tonne! I guess by your standards that might be a lot (enough to pollute the ocean?!)? It would also be significantly less if it weren't for having to treat brood stock fish. The net pen fish receive maybe 10% of that and only in extreme cases where nothing else can be done.

Holmes

The fact that they cannot produce any results shows that levels were low to begin with.It also brings to question why they did not keep samples properly, when it is mandatory that the CFIA do tests as well.It all seems fishy to me. Even if low levels were detected to begin with, once again that does not mean that the fish was infected, just means it was carrying it.

Also about the feed.As said before, there are strict rules on how much can be taken for fish meal. If numbers of food fish are not good, there is no catch allotted. Much of this also goes into dog and cat food, do you own either of those? If you are you are also taking "food" right "out of the mouths" of wild fish. As said before, salmon ranching taking part in China releasing close to a billion fish right into the ocean is causing much more damage than netting out an allotted amount of food fish. I still don't get why no one is in an uproar about the salmon ranching? Less and less wild fish, more and more "enhancement" (which are all taken as food over there) and no one points a finger at that?

Every Day: Gotta give your teachers a lot of credit as you are learning well. The problem is you are learning what the industry is teaching. While PCB's, DDT, Asbestos and many other substances were being used, government and industry deemed that they were safe to use. (Some countries still use them) I'm certain the educators of the day also taught that they were safe.... Unfortunately when the danger to the environment was proven a lot of damage was already done!

Your argument that the farms are safe has no basis other than the industry and government says they are safe. Because of their suspect motives (generating profits/taxes) most of us won't accept the "farms are safe" argument. Hopefully it's not too late before we are proven right!

Logged

Disclosure: This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context.

First of all (most important) as said before Chile had no salmon stocks to begin with, nothing was wiped out. Norway has not had any wild stocks wiped out either.

What happened on the East coast may indeed (from my view point) have been caused by farms. But you are missing 2 major factors here:

1) The wild stocks were the same as the farmed fish. This meant that diseases could actually spread from wild to farmed and vice versa. It also meant that if any farmed fish escaped, they could actually spawn in the wild and weaken the genetic pool. This is not the case in our waters, where pacific salmon are very immune to Atlantic diseases and can't produce viable offspring with them.

2) Bio security back then was almost non existent. Farms were extremely clustered and were hot spots for disease. Fish were harvested right on site and blood was pumped right into the water. Brood fish were kept close to smolts, etc. Bio security has become incredibly harsh now. There are different management zones where only 1 age class of fish can be raised at a time. No harvest can be done at sites, and if done on a vessel no harvest water can be put back into the ocean without sanitation. Fines are huge and can result in your licence being pulled, so in short no one does it. There hasn't been an outbreak of ISA or other disease since bio security protocols have been raised.

If you are referring to their Cod fishery (and I'm sure this applies to their Atlantics even somewhat as well) that was strictly over fishing that did them in. Cod are a totally different species and inhabit different niches, etc. Farms had nothing to do with their demise, and unless you can provide some type of scientific paper (or anyone else) that is what most people would go off of.

Once again, no impact in Norway and especially Chile which had no stocks to begin with, although anti farmers would love you to believe that.

Waste? How is the farmed salmon waste any different than wild salmon waste? They are fed the same stuff and produce the same waste? Even if you argue about the food waste going into the ocean, it was taken out of the ocean to begin with!

Diseases? I don't know of hardly any diseases (if any at all) that can live more than 48 hrs in the water. Once again, diseases effecting Atlantic's hardly ever effect Pacific salmon as they are more hardy and have developed immunities to many of the diseases.

Medication? This really annoys me! Anyone can go online and find the actual amount of antibiotics administered to farmed fish. 2009 it was a whopping 528 g per Metric Tonne! I guess by your standards that might be a lot (enough to pollute the ocean?!)? It would also be significantly less if it weren't for having to treat brood stock fish. The net pen fish receive maybe 10% of that and only in extreme cases where nothing else can be done.

Holmes

The fact that they cannot produce any results shows that levels were low to begin with.It also brings to question why they did not keep samples properly, when it is mandatory that the CFIA do tests as well.It all seems fishy to me. Even if low levels were detected to begin with, once again that does not mean that the fish was infected, just means it was carrying it.

Also about the feed.As said before, there are strict rules on how much can be taken for fish meal. If numbers of food fish are not good, there is no catch allotted. Much of this also goes into dog and cat food, do you own either of those? If you are you are also taking "food" right "out of the mouths" of wild fish. As said before, salmon ranching taking part in China releasing close to a billion fish right into the ocean is causing much more damage than netting out an allotted amount of food fish. I still don't get why no one is in an uproar about the salmon ranching? Less and less wild fish, more and more "enhancement" (which are all taken as food over there) and no one points a finger at that?

Cheers,Dan

Dan,don't believe all the facts the fish farm lobby put out. If you really knew what went on at Cohen, how things are trying to be covered up with some witness being denied a chance to speak as well as what they wanted to present you would be very disappointed. I will relate some info later when I review what was recently sent to me.

Dan,don't believe all the facts the fish farm lobby put out. If you really knew what went on at Cohen, how things are trying to be covered up with some witness being denied a chance to speak as well as what they wanted to present you would be very disappointed. I will relate some info later when I review what was recently sent to me.

I've read virtually every Cohen commission transcript and I just don't see any support for this conspiracy theory stuff in any of it....it wasn't presented in evidence or testimony but Alex Morton did try to spin the testimony on her blog afterwards to suggest it. So that's just Alex's rationalizations of why the data doesn't match her conclusions.

While PCB's, DDT, Asbestos and many other substances were being used, government and industry deemed that they were safe to use. (Some countries still use them) I'm certain the educators of the day also taught that they were safe.... Unfortunately when the danger to the environment was proven a lot of damage was already done!

Those came out of the chemical revolution of the 50's when chemistry was going to revolutionize our lives and industry was booming and governments wanted a big piece of the pie and the words "environmental assessment" were unkown. But times have changed so it's not really fair to think that 50's thinking is still driving decisions today.

Dan,don't believe all the facts the fish farm lobby put out. If you really knew what went on at Cohen, how things are trying to be covered up with some witness being denied a chance to speak as well as what they wanted to present you would be very disappointed. I will relate some info later when I review what was recently sent to me.

Why is it assumed that Dans info comes from a Farm Lobby.

Chris, You have been asking this question for months and when you finally get an answer you change the topic from facts to cover-ups etc. What do you think of Dans answer?

Those came out of the chemical revolution of the 50's when chemistry was going to revolutionize our lives and industry was booming and governments wanted a big piece of the pie and the words "environmental assessment" were unkown. But times have changed so it's not really fair to think that 50's thinking is still driving decisions today.

Don't blame the 50's generation for that! Put the blame on industry and government for the reasons I gave. Suggesting the cause for the devastation created by those chemicals was "50's thinking" is naive. The same dollars driving industry and government in the 50's are driving them today. If it wasn't for a few aware forward thinking people that convinced industry and government that "environmental assessment" was required the carnage would have continued.

Morton has no ties to industry or government, she is the one pushing for "environmental assessment" with respect to the fish farms.

Logged

Disclosure: This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context.